As the issue of immigrants occupying social housing in London has gained prominence, I sketch out what I believe the main objections to the status quo to be
One of the frustrating things about this discourse is that in the absence of a Russkiye-Rossiyane distinction recognised by the English language, we end up tied in semantic knots trying to identify exactly who we're talking about here.
As far as I can tell, there are 5 potential categories:
1) First-generation migrants (unnaturalised)
2) First-generation migrants (naturalised)
3) Second and third generation children of migrants (British born)
4) People born in Britain of British ancestry
5) People born outside Britain of British ancestry
Referring to the "foreign born" is partially useful, but excludes group #3, who are massively overrepresented in social housing, as well as (misleadingly) conflating groups #1 and #2 with group #5.
Referring to "British nationals" captures group #3, but excludes group #1.
Referring to "not White British" gets closer to the mark, although is a bit clunky and as far as I can see, mainstream RWers who are otherwise pretty good on this question (NOB, Goodwin etc) are somewhat hesitant to couch it in these terms, admittedly for understandable tactical reasons.
I would add a potential sixth category, which is those who are mixed migrant and British ancestry, thus complicating things further.
I agree that foreign born is currently the most useful proxy, even though it encompasses people like Boris Johnson (who is always inevitably brought up) and so has limited precision. I don’t see those semantic knots you mention being undone anytime soon.
One of the frustrating things about this discourse is that in the absence of a Russkiye-Rossiyane distinction recognised by the English language, we end up tied in semantic knots trying to identify exactly who we're talking about here.
As far as I can tell, there are 5 potential categories:
1) First-generation migrants (unnaturalised)
2) First-generation migrants (naturalised)
3) Second and third generation children of migrants (British born)
4) People born in Britain of British ancestry
5) People born outside Britain of British ancestry
Referring to the "foreign born" is partially useful, but excludes group #3, who are massively overrepresented in social housing, as well as (misleadingly) conflating groups #1 and #2 with group #5.
Referring to "British nationals" captures group #3, but excludes group #1.
Referring to "not White British" gets closer to the mark, although is a bit clunky and as far as I can see, mainstream RWers who are otherwise pretty good on this question (NOB, Goodwin etc) are somewhat hesitant to couch it in these terms, admittedly for understandable tactical reasons.
I would add a potential sixth category, which is those who are mixed migrant and British ancestry, thus complicating things further.
I agree that foreign born is currently the most useful proxy, even though it encompasses people like Boris Johnson (who is always inevitably brought up) and so has limited precision. I don’t see those semantic knots you mention being undone anytime soon.
Only racists care
King keep feeding the base
Its almost like the author does not know that sh tenants pay rent
That rent funds the costs